The biggest advantage of a car, the #1 reason I often turn to it when I otherwise wouldn't, is because it's a portable shelter that holds up equally well to wind, heat, and cold. Especially when...
The biggest advantage of a car, the #1 reason I often turn to it when I otherwise wouldn't, is because it's a portable shelter that holds up equally well to wind, heat, and cold. Especially when you're not single and childless.
I fundamentally agree with the premise of the article. But I have a feeling something more like an enclosed electric golf cart, where the top speed is like 20 mph, but still provides a solid enclosure against bad weather will get a lot more uptake and support within cities. Because otherwise, we'd see a lot more motorcycles in cities than SUVs today.
I'd propose a law banning all non-commercial vehicles from having a weight over 500kg in dense cities. The rest will sort itself out.
I'm neither single nor childless, and while I don't see myself being car free for those reasons, I would dramatically reduce my vehicle miles traveled if I had a cargo eBike. Yeah it being hot and...
I'm neither single nor childless, and while I don't see myself being car free for those reasons, I would dramatically reduce my vehicle miles traveled if I had a cargo eBike.
Yeah it being hot and cold suck. But maybe my kid should just grow up to not be a little wuss. He's a hardy lad, he'll be fine.
But what keeps me from biking as much as I'd want are:
1.) Drivers are insane. It is simply not safe with how badly and recklessly people drive here.
2.) I have a walk-up and I have nowhere to store an eBike in a covered and locked space. Not being covered means weather really puts wear on the bike and not being locked means it's a constant target for theft.
Not having a safe place to lock a bike is a real deal-breaker for me. I'm lucky enough to have a parking space that obviously fits a bike (two, actually) easily, but there is no way I would even...
Not having a safe place to lock a bike is a real deal-breaker for me. I'm lucky enough to have a parking space that obviously fits a bike (two, actually) easily, but there is no way I would even think of having a bike if I had to lock it up, making it vulnerable to thieves and the weather...
But drivers being basically bad is a huge problem. In my city, painting a bike picture every hundred metres apparently makes a "bike lane". But there are often three lanes in the roadway, and the one nearest the pavement is a bus/taxi-only lane and the middle (the MIDDLE!!!) lane is a "bike" lane. So you have taxis weaving between their lane and the middle "bike" lane (to get past buses - which are also roaring past the cyclist), and normal cars/vans/lorries/murderers in the middle "bike" and fast lanes. It's a real deathtrap and as long as they city council is patting itself on the back as it claims a successful rollout of more bike lanes, I know that my partner will (quite reasonably) refuse to ever look at a bike as a realistic mode of transport. It's really a terrible shame.
So I have a cargo bike, a Bunch bike. I actually really like it, except for a few things: It's really unstable, especially when empty. The adult peddling is really really high up. In order for me...
So I have a cargo bike, a Bunch bike. I actually really like it, except for a few things:
It's really unstable, especially when empty. The adult peddling is really really high up. In order for me not to nearly topple hitting tiny bumps, I had to insure I always had at least 40 lbs in the cargo area. I learned this after toppling it going 8 mph and needing to make a small dodge that would be trivial on a regular bike.
Turning it is incredibly janky, especially over 5 mph.
I think I will try to replace it with a trike version, where the adult sits lower and the cargo (including child) is in the back.
I still use it quite a bit, but I don't feel safe anytime I'm traveling on any road that isn't 100% smooth...which is basically all of them.
Like, if I drove it any slower I might as well just walk with a wheelbarrow. I don't disagree fwiw. That's why I'm scoping out one that looks more like a recumbant trike.
Like, if I drove it any slower I might as well just walk with a wheelbarrow.
I don't disagree fwiw. That's why I'm scoping out one that looks more like a recumbant trike.
Bad drivers are a worry for me too for any kind of bike, especially with how one has to cross or ride alongside high speed roads to get anywhere in my suburb. While I have a place to keep a bike...
Bad drivers are a worry for me too for any kind of bike, especially with how one has to cross or ride alongside high speed roads to get anywhere in my suburb.
While I have a place to keep a bike at home (a garage), that doesn’t help when I need to leave my bike parked unattended while out and about. Even if it’s locked there’s a good chance it’ll get stolen for anything more than a momentary stop, and the higher value one’s bike looks the more of a target it is. Any bike I’d buy would need to be either a folding bike I can carry with me (which is awkward for e.g. grocery runs) or the most basic cheap Walmart bike I can find so it’s not painful to replace.
It feels like the best I can get away with is a small street legal car, something like a Yaris or Fit. Would go smaller than that with an LSV/NEV of some sort, but then you run into street legality problems.
Pretty much why I don't bike. I'll admit, I'm lazy, so it's never the first thing to come to mind, but also, every time I've done it, I've been been nearly hit or need to cross sketchy streets or...
Pretty much why I don't bike. I'll admit, I'm lazy, so it's never the first thing to come to mind, but also, every time I've done it, I've been been nearly hit or need to cross sketchy streets or areas. My options for riding to the park are thus:
Ride along a sidewalk that isn't more than 3' wide and not taken care of (different levels, garbage, people, etc), then cross a 6-Lane road, cross half a dozen or more ingress/egresses for parking lots, cross another 6-lane road and finally two residential streets (which aren't bad at all).
Go through a parking lot, which entails lifting my bike (with trailer, with 70lbs worth of kids in the back) over and down a 2' concrete wall (Both ways, if I return this way), navigate a pitted, pot-holed parking lot, which is mostly empty, so that's nice, but due to this encourages people to shortcut/speed through it, cross an intersection where two 6-lane strodes intersect, then the two residential streets later on.
Then there's dodging all the homeless and their needles/refuse strewn about and making sure wherever I park, I can keep an eye on my bike so it isn't stolen.
It's just too much asspain and danger. I love riding my bike and bringing the kids along with me, but I'm unwilling to put my life at risk, especially when it also involves lots of asspain. I'm not the type that biking is a hobby for me, but I'd be willing to do it much more often if it were significantly easier than driving, which isn't the case.
Yeah the theft is the other big concern I forgot to mention. My homeowner's insurance will cover bicycle theft, but only up to $500. I'm not sure if there's a higher reimbursement for eBike theft,...
Yeah the theft is the other big concern I forgot to mention. My homeowner's insurance will cover bicycle theft, but only up to $500. I'm not sure if there's a higher reimbursement for eBike theft, because that's reasonable for a bike but not for an eBike. And it's a giant hassle besides.
Plus the cops don't take bike thievery seriously. Nowadays people are putting Tiles or Airtags in their bikes and able to physically take them to the police with the actual coordinates of where it is and they still don't do anything.
We really, really need to up the penalties for bicycle theft. The penalties really don't reflect the magnitude of the crime. Consider the case of horse theft. In many times in history, horse theft...
We really, really need to up the penalties for bicycle theft. The penalties really don't reflect the magnitude of the crime.
Consider the case of horse theft. In many times in history, horse theft was severely punished, including up to torture and execution.
There are two ways to treat theft. You can judge the severity of the theft by the monetary cost of the item stolen, or you can charge based on the effect losing the object has on the victim. In some applications, context can matter beyond fair market value. If I steal a gallon of water from a hose at your house, I'm not hurting you beyond literal pennies in damages. You probably wouldn't even notice the missing water or the slightly increased water bill. But imagine I steal a gallon of water, your only gallon of water, while you're trying to hike through a desert. The fair market value of that water is still just a few pennies, but my actions may result in your death. Context matters for theft, and often laws are written to attempt to take that into account.
This is why horse theft was often treated far harsher than stealing say, an amount of grain equal in value to that horse. If you steal someone's horse in the wilderness, you're stranding them, possibly to their doom. If you steal the horse or oxen of a farmer, you may be literally taking away their ability to feed their family. In olden days, that family might starve because of your theft.
And it goes forward with cars. Many states have special laws relating to the theft of automobiles. Yes, there are still general theft laws based on the value of the object stolen, but the law makes special provision for cars. Again, this is because of the effect this theft has on the victim. Imagine someone owns a single car, an old vehicle worth only $5k. In their house they also have possessions, think mixed electronics, that are also worth $5k. Stealing their only vehicle is going to hurt them a lot more than stealing their television and other electronics, even if they have the same fair market value. The law recognizes that when people lose their vehicles, they lose mobility. They can no longer get to work, take their kids to school, go shopping, etc. When you steal a car, you are not just stealing a vehicle, you are potentially robbing someone of their livelihood. And the law treats car theft with the seriousness it deserves.
But bicycles? The law treats bicycles as toys. They're seen as exercise and sporting equipment, not a core mode of transportation. If someone steals your bike, they can only face general theft charges based on the fair market value of the bike. Laws haven't been written that carve out bike theft as a special kind of theft, like we have for automobiles.
We need new laws to treat bike theft with the seriousness it deserves. Cities and states are trying to get serious about climate action and trying to do whatever they can to get people to take alternate forms of transportation. But the law hasn't caught up to this reality. Cities build bike lanes trying to get people to treat bikes as serious and viable modes of practical transportation, but the law still treats bikes like toys. If you want people to really rely on bikes and respect them as viable modes of transport, the law needs to reflect this.
Stealing a bike should have the same penalties as stealing a car. Again, we have special laws that carve out serious felonies specifically for stealing cars. Even if your car is a $500 barely-running beater, if someone steals that, they can be prosecuted for a serious felony. But if someone steals your $500 bicycle, even if it's your only form of transportation, the thief will at most be charged under general theft laws, the same as if they stole $500 of random goods from Walmart.
This is why police don't take bike theft seriously. Bike theft is hard to investigate. And they know that even if they beat the odds and manage to catch a bike thief, the law is on their side. Even if they can get a conviction for the theft of a bike, they'll only get a few months in jail at most. All that work from the police department's side just means a single bike thief is out of commission for a month or two. From the cop's perspective, there are better ways to spend scarce resources.
But imagine if bike theft was a serious felony, and busting someone for bike theft would get them 5-10 years in prison. In this case, it's actually worth going after the bike thieves. Busting a bike thief would result in them being off the streets for quite awhile. In that case, it becomes much easier to justify police resources, as it would actually make a meaningful impact on protecting citizens.
We need new laws that treat bike theft with the seriousness it deserves. The law is wildly inconsistent with most governments' stated goals of wanting people to use bikes as a viable means of transportation. We need to treat bike theft as seriously as vehicle theft. Until we do that, it's no wonder that many people view bicycles as toys rather than a serious mode of transport. After all, why should people respect bicycle riders, when the law clearly doesn't?
That cap is actually weridly low for bicycles. Sure, that will cover pretty much all the bikes they sell at Walmart, but quality bikes can easily go over that. Decent quality mountain bikes can...
That cap is actually weridly low for bicycles. Sure, that will cover pretty much all the bikes they sell at Walmart, but quality bikes can easily go over that. Decent quality mountain bikes can easily cost double that.
I had the opposite experience. When my tracked e-bike got stolen, I gave the location to the police and they very promptly retrieved my bike and arrested the guy. In my experience, police actually...
Plus the cops don't take bike thievery seriously. Nowadays people are putting Tiles or Airtags in their bikes and able to physically take them to the police with the actual coordinates of where it is and they still don't do anything.
I had the opposite experience. When my tracked e-bike got stolen, I gave the location to the police and they very promptly retrieved my bike and arrested the guy. In my experience, police actually like easy, shut-and-close cases.
Cold and weather can certainly be a problem regardless of age depending on the location in the US. For example we have six inches of snow on the roads today, and wind makes the temperature feel...
Cold and weather can certainly be a problem regardless of age depending on the location in the US. For example we have six inches of snow on the roads today, and wind makes the temperature feel like -20f. No amount of clothing will make a bike ride as comfortable as a car in this weather.
It's pretty wild to call places where tens of millions of people live (e.g. Canada) "an edge case". I feel like you've been discounting other peoples' lived experiences all over this thread. You...
This kind of edge case gets exaggerated all over media and creates a misleading perception of impracticality.
It's pretty wild to call places where tens of millions of people live (e.g. Canada) "an edge case".
I feel like you've been discounting other peoples' lived experiences all over this thread. You don't live in a frigid environment and you don't have kids - maybe listen & learn from people who are in that situation, instead of trying to convince them they're going about life wrong.
One of the best parts of the internet is that you can reach such a huge variety of people in all sorts of places and circumstances. One of the worst parts of the internet is that you can reach...
One of the best parts of the internet is that you can reach such a huge variety of people in all sorts of places and circumstances. One of the worst parts of the internet is that you can reach such a huge variety of people in all sorts of places and circumstances.
I just wanted to say that I understand the other commenter's frustration. Any suggestion that's probably applicable to most people on the internet is met with opposition by the minority who it doesn't apply to. Maybe sometimes you want to talk about hiking trails without having to address amputees and paraplegics. Maybe sometimes you want to talk about bikes without having to address Canadians, given that the majority of the world population lives in areas that don't get nearly so cold.
I don't have enough experience with cold weather to have an opinion on this, but I think it's fair for someone to want to discuss the idea that kids can handle fairly cold weather with the understanding that -21 degrees isn't necessarily what they're talking about. Suggesting that someone "listen & learn" is shutting down the conversation, especially when the standard of "frigid" is apparently even colder than -21F. Everyone is an outlier in some way. If you live in Canada, you are definitely an outlier in how cold your climate is.
You need to take into account the context of this thread. The top-level comment is about how cars solve the problem of transporting 1. children 2. in extreme weather. I'm not trying to shut down...
You need to take into account the context of this thread. The top-level comment is about how cars solve the problem of transporting 1. children 2. in extreme weather.
I'm not trying to shut down someone who wants to talk about bikes vs. cars in other circumstances. But you can't just disregard the premise of the discussion. You have to engage with the topic, not just hand-wave the very case being discussed as "an edge case."
That's the thing, I don't think this discussion was about "extreme" weather to start with. The top level comment says "wind, heat, and cold," and "bad weather." While "cold" and "bad" are relative...
That's the thing, I don't think this discussion was about "extreme" weather to start with.
The top level comment says "wind, heat, and cold," and "bad weather." While "cold" and "bad" are relative terms subject to interpretation, I don't think we necessarily have to cover what "cold" means in Winnipeg or Iqaluit. The topic is the adoption of electric bikes in general, not that electric bikes are appropriate for all climate zones.
Fair enough. I was reacting more to the mid-level comment about more extreme weather. I still think it's rather disrespectful to claim that someone's lived experience is actually just media hype;...
Fair enough. I was reacting more to the mid-level comment about more extreme weather.
I still think it's rather disrespectful to claim that someone's lived experience is actually just media hype; that's mainly what I'm reacting to, I suppose.
That is not what was said though. To be frank, having gone over this conversation, I feel like you might have reached conclusions before reading and internalizing the comment you replied to. Which...
is actually just media hype;
That is not what was said though. To be frank, having gone over this conversation, I feel like you might have reached conclusions before reading and internalizing the comment you replied to. Which happens a lot on the internet and makes conversations more heated than they really ought to be.
Let's go back to the comment you took issue with. It started out with this.
The observation I would make is that most people who drive everywhere don’t live in places where it gets even close to –30°C (–21°F). This kind of edge case gets exaggerated all over media and creates a misleading perception of impracticality.
Note the bold bit. While there are indeed a lot of Canadians, compared to how many people are down south from Canada, the Canadian winter conditions are still an edge case in the context of the overall conversation. More importantly, what the person you replied to said is not "media hype" but that the –30°C (–21°F) cases are picked up by the media and reported on as if those are true everywhere.
Something they reaffirm further down in their comment again
In southern states, which have very high car ownership, cold temperatures like that just don’t happen. The population distribution of the US is focusing more and more on warmer areas where this isn’t an issue.
Then they close it down with this remark
If you personally live somewhere it gets to –21°F on a regular basis, I can understand if you don’t want to go without an enclosed vehicle. I probably wouldn’t
I honestly think they have been about as clear as they can be.
I mean, do you live somewhere that gets cold? The temperature recorded is not the only thing that matters. The wind has a fantastic effect on the perceived temperature. I live in Ohio and it’s...
I mean, do you live somewhere that gets cold? The temperature recorded is not the only thing that matters. The wind has a fantastic effect on the perceived temperature. I live in Ohio and it’s regularly in the tens of degrees Fahrenheit. But with wind, the windchill makes it feel well below 0f.
I don’t think this is an edge case, but the reality for millions of midwestern and north eastern Americans.
Also I’m not arguing against e-bikes. I personally would love to get one. But unfortunately I don’t think I’d be able to use one all of the year, or for all of my daily travel.
I'm just going to caveat this with the American South currently in the grips of freezes breaking pipes all over the place (lows in the 10s fahrenheit without wind chills) and the South usually in...
US has 38.4% of the population in the South (where this just isn’t a problem)
I'm just going to caveat this with the American South currently in the grips of freezes breaking pipes all over the place (lows in the 10s fahrenheit without wind chills) and the South usually in the grips of a triple digit heatwave (with wet bulbs in the black) even outside of the logistical nightmare that is US infrastructure - most families can barely afford food, let alone $3k+ for a bike, trailer, safety gear, and various weather gears...
Well, let's just say the US might be better positioned to subside EV bikes but will continue to incentivize cars regardless.
Yeah I don’t disagree. I’d love to see some more adoption of these things. Just pointing out that for a substantial number of people I don’t think they could ever truly replace cars. But just be a...
Yeah I don’t disagree. I’d love to see some more adoption of these things. Just pointing out that for a substantial number of people I don’t think they could ever truly replace cars. But just be a supplement.
It would be great to get to a place where cars are considered the supplement instead, with other modes considered the default. I live in a cold, wet, windy place and have a kid. We have an...
It would be great to get to a place where cars are considered the supplement instead, with other modes considered the default.
I live in a cold, wet, windy place and have a kid. We have an electric cargo bike and a non electric commuter with a seat on the back for her. The car is only necessary for safety (being risk averse) maybe 10% of the time throughout the year.
I live in Houston, a noted car centric city......and even if we were more dense to where biking would be feasible from a time perspective, the climate just isn't cooperative to it. Ignoring cold,...
I live in Houston, a noted car centric city......and even if we were more dense to where biking would be feasible from a time perspective, the climate just isn't cooperative to it. Ignoring cold, it's too damn hot and humid in the summer, and it rains far too much to be exposed to the elements in any form. That's not something you can easily work around, until E-bikes start having Aircon when it's 98° nobody wants to be biking. That's millions of people in Houston alone, include TX proper, or Arizona, or the rest of the gulf Coast where it's blistering hot, nobody bikes because it's not comfortable. I'd love to when the weather permits, I am not in love with driving, but cars are convenient, that's why they won out anywhere that didn't have sufficient public transit
But cars being more convenient and lack of sufficient public transit aren't things that appeared out of nowhere. They're the result of policy decisions. I don't expect all of Houston to start...
cars are convenient, that's why they won out anywhere that didn't have sufficient public transit
But cars being more convenient and lack of sufficient public transit aren't things that appeared out of nowhere. They're the result of policy decisions. I don't expect all of Houston to start biking tomorrow as it's currently designed. No one does. But making policy decisions that make it easier and safer to be a pedestrian or cyclist will increase the number of people who cycle.
I find that in threads like this, North Americans have a tendency to defend themselves like advocates are trying to force them personally to start biking without any other societal changes. But most people arguing for walkable cities or better cycling infrastructure are advocating for improvements in policy. We're not trying to make you feel morally inferior for not cycling in an environment where it's hostile, we're advocating for changing urban infrastructure in ways that make walking, cycling, and taking public transport more viable.
In many parts of Southeast Asia, you see comparable levels of heat, humidity, and rainfall, yet tons of folks commute (sometimes with the whole family) by moped. The key for making bicycle...
In many parts of Southeast Asia, you see comparable levels of heat, humidity, and rainfall, yet tons of folks commute (sometimes with the whole family) by moped. The key for making bicycle commuting feasible is good urban design, including lots of trees for cover.
I live in suburban South Carolina, so I wouldn’t want to ride a bike on many of these wide stroads lacking any trees. But in denser parts, with street trees and slower cars, sure.
I think some of this is the case of if they could have, they would have, southeast Asia didn't have the same type of manufacturing that the US did through the early 20th century, when car centric...
I think some of this is the case of if they could have, they would have, southeast Asia didn't have the same type of manufacturing that the US did through the early 20th century, when car centric culture was in full swing. Not to mention cars were more expensive, and those areas were poorer than the US, too. In some ways, maybe mopeds are a better alternative to cars, but they feel very similar, people still chose the fossil fuels, polluting, more dangerous options over biking or walking, and there was less central planning around cars, I suppose. I seriously would love to bike/walk more, but it just....well it is a long way off. Houston is making some significant strides with protected bike lanes though, which I'm happy about
I'm just gonna say it sounds like you've never tried to wrangle a 2 year old into just shoes and a coat. This can be a 30 minute process unless you're willing to induce brute-force trauma. And...
I'm just gonna say it sounds like you've never tried to wrangle a 2 year old into just shoes and a coat. This can be a 30 minute process unless you're willing to induce brute-force trauma. And that's just, bare minimum to get outside of the house. Biking only works if your time has no meaning.
Most bike trailers rated for kids top out at 50 lbs. Some top out at 100 lbs. And most can't fit a 4 year old that is in the 90% percentile for height. Both of my kids are at the 95% for height. I had approximately a 1 year window where I would have been able to tow my kids safely.
A 5 year old isn't going to be able to ride their bike for 2 miles inside of 30 minutes. My 5 year old was too large to reasonably fit into any bike trailer that would also house the toddler. Plus the weight disparity of the two would have made turns...interesting.
And I live in an area where I'll even contemplate doing these things. But when I lived in a more dense suburb of Philadelphia? I feared too much for my own life biking solo and would often walk instead if I could...there's no way in hell I would bike my kids around.
I do have an electric cargo bike, but that has its own fair share of problems. I intend to replace it with a different model when funds free up again, because that might solve some of these things.
It was literally several degrees below freezing for the past few days with a windchill pushing it even further. At different points we would get rain that would immediately freeze where it landed...
I think you have a cultural understanding
It was literally several degrees below freezing for the past few days with a windchill pushing it even further. At different points we would get rain that would immediately freeze where it landed (that is, when it wasn't straight up sleet or hail). This coming off a summer that saw weeks straight with temps over 100F/38C and a dew point pushing 80F/26C.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you don't live somewhere with weather like that, yeah?
My weather app currently has an extreme weather advisory for wind chill down to -15F, and people are having pipes break. It's been like this for a week...and this is in a "warmer" part of the US...
My weather app currently has an extreme weather advisory for wind chill down to -15F, and people are having pipes break. It's been like this for a week...and this is in a "warmer" part of the US that routinely hits triple digits in the summer; it's a warmer area than where I grew up, where this sort of winter weather is very common.
I can't emphasize enough that people die and sustain injuries from prolonged exposure to cold temperatures. Then in the summer, heat stroke is a real issue, and rising wet bulb temperatures are increasing the risk.
I know it's a common card folks pull out in these discussions, but I lived in the Netherlands for a year and it is completely viable to commute/shop/transport kids by bike even in foul weather....
I know it's a common card folks pull out in these discussions, but I lived in the Netherlands for a year and it is completely viable to commute/shop/transport kids by bike even in foul weather. There were days below freezing, snowy days, windy days, it didn't matter; moms and dads would still be out there with their Bakfiets ferrying kids to and fro. The children that were old enough to bike on their own did as well. My own commute (through the center of Amsterdam as well) often had long sections that saw me handle bar to handle bar with troves of kids on their way to school. It was very fun.
I think we have a different concept for what is "acceptable" for children to endure domestically. The cold, the snow, and the rain are things kids should avoid, but elsewhere they are just everyday parts of life.
Yeah but the Netherlands has famously great biking infrastructure. I wouldn't commute by bike in Toronto especially in the winter, I don't wanna die lol
Yeah but the Netherlands has famously great biking infrastructure. I wouldn't commute by bike in Toronto especially in the winter, I don't wanna die lol
Preaching to the choir! I'm US based now and the infrastructure by us leaves a lot to be desired as well. I think it's a if a city builds it, they will come situation. I just was adding in a...
Preaching to the choir! I'm US based now and the infrastructure by us leaves a lot to be desired as well. I think it's a if a city builds it, they will come situation. I just was adding in a little perspective to the idea that weather is the factor that prevents use/adoption. It's not, it's poor infrastructure.
I'd say weather prevents adoption because it is yet another hurdle, making it just that more inconvienient. It's pretty damn hard to voluntarily give up something that both saves time and improves...
I'd say weather prevents adoption because it is yet another hurdle, making it just that more inconvienient.
It's pretty damn hard to voluntarily give up something that both saves time and improves comfort, even if you solve the 'fear of death' problem.
Totally. I just felt like it was being used as a catch all for "you can't do it in cold climates, not a I wouldn't do it in cold climates. Less people will bike if it's colder, but you still can....
I'd say weather prevents adoption because it is yet another hurdle, making it just that more inconvienient.
Totally. I just felt like it was being used as a catch all for "you can't do it in cold climates, not a I wouldn't do it in cold climates. Less people will bike if it's colder, but you still can.
saves time
Agreed, but that's why we need to deprioritize car dominance. This is a key part of the argument that it's just a given that car travel is the fastest. It's not, we've just prioritized it so that it is. Cars are big and inefficient, they create traffic and require huge amounts of parking. If you had adequate rail/bike infrastructure it's is actually faster, beyond just safer. The big caveat here is this is true in high density areas. The rural areas can keep there roads and cars, I have no issue with that. But in urban or suburban centers the car is only the choice option because we've made it so, and chose to 80 years ago. Considering a growing global population, increase urban/suburban density, issues with traffic/pollution, and technological innovations (i.e. electric bikes and high speed trains), I think it's time to rethink our priorities.
I would love this, if it were more normalised. I have no doubt that if they are unusual, they will be ruthlessly and dangerously bullied by drivers of larger vehicles.
I would love this, if it were more normalised. I have no doubt that if they are unusual, they will be ruthlessly and dangerously bullied by drivers of larger vehicles.
Yeah... Some of the places with great cycling structure are quite cold, sometimes snowy. And I know most people here are on colder climates, but let me tell you, even 25C can be a challenge -- and...
Yeah... Some of the places with great cycling structure are quite cold, sometimes snowy. And I know most people here are on colder climates, but let me tell you, even 25C can be a challenge -- and where I'm from that's a cool day! Imagine cycling when it is 30C, 38C, or even 40C with high humidity. If you're athletic enough you'll probably get there, but you will be stinking and drenched in sweat. At the very least you'll need a shower and a place to change. There's also global warming: I distinctly remember being able to cycle in my city at noon. That is not true anymore (and no, this not just me getting older).
This makes sense where I live, where things are far apart and public transportation is lacking. I can use my bike or scooter until the wind chill gets cold enough that I start needing ski goggles...
This makes sense where I live, where things are far apart and public transportation is lacking. I can use my bike or scooter until the wind chill gets cold enough that I start needing ski goggles and snow pants, and then it is often too inconvenient to change at the destination and I have to switch to a car.
But contrast this with walkable places like NYC. People don't need to own a car for the cold winters, even with families.
My problem is I wouldn't want to live in a city like NYC, even if it is walkable. It's too crowded.
I think weight restrictions are a good idea, but it is probably better to introduce a 2 or 3 tonne restriction first on safety grounds (extremely heavy SUVs are incredibly dangerous for...
I'd propose a law banning all non-commercial vehicles from having a weight over 500kg in dense cities. The rest will sort itself out.
I think weight restrictions are a good idea, but it is probably better to introduce a 2 or 3 tonne restriction first on safety grounds (extremely heavy SUVs are incredibly dangerous for pedestrians) before moving to move radical territory.
In France they have Voiturettes. Very similar concept to your idea and drivable by 14 year old and ups with no licence needed. https://www.onlygoodnewsdaily.com/post/france-s-voiturettes
In France they have Voiturettes. Very similar concept to your idea and drivable by 14 year old and ups with no licence needed.
I’ve always found the obsession in western media over e-bikes a little odd. They feel like the an unnecessary middle option mostly born to circumvent driving regulations. One on hand, you have the...
I’ve always found the obsession in western media over e-bikes a little odd. They feel like the an unnecessary middle option mostly born to circumvent driving regulations. One on hand, you have the bike, which will always be the cheapest option, and also a form of exercise. On the other you have an electric moped or scooter, which is far more practical as a transportation option.
Pedal assist ebikes just feel weird to me. The only advantage I’ve read is that you don’t need a drivers license for them but that sounds more like a quirks of legal systems.
A pedal-assisted ebike can turn a half-hour slog into a pretty easy affair. It "smoothes out" ups and downs (if that's an issue where the commuter lives). Altogether, it means that you don't need...
A pedal-assisted ebike can turn a half-hour slog into a pretty easy affair. It "smoothes out" ups and downs (if that's an issue where the commuter lives). Altogether, it means that you don't need to be in shape to transition your commute to a bike, so older/unfit/etc. people can now get on a bike.
And because you can normally choose how much help you want the motor to provide, you can scale up your work relative to the motor's work as you get more comfortable with the workout (or keep the workout to a minimum if you need to reduce sweatiness).
So it’s some ungodly fusion between a peloton and an electric scooter? At least have a proper throttle. The idea that there’s vehicles where there’s an entire electric motor but it only turns on...
So it’s some ungodly fusion between a peloton and an electric scooter? At least have a proper throttle. The idea that there’s vehicles where there’s an entire electric motor but it only turns on when you complete rotation on a pedal is just ???.
What would be the benefit over a scooter be other than bypassing driving laws?
Well, the motor is doing less work since you're getting it going. That means the whole package can be much lighter. Not to mention that it feels good to perform aerobic exercise. I'd rather drive...
Well, the motor is doing less work since you're getting it going. That means the whole package can be much lighter. Not to mention that it feels good to perform aerobic exercise. I'd rather drive an ebike with panniers than a scooter because they both have roughly the same limitations, but one of them is more modular, maneuverable, and provides the opportunity for exercise while allowing for the rider to say "nah nevermind" with the flip of a switch.
Most ebikes do have a throttle, by the way. Not a proper one, since they won't start the motor, but that's literally half a revolution.
Evidently not that much less work if it’s a “pretty easy affair”. Electric mopeds in China or Thailand or anywhere else they’re popular are made of the exact same parts as e-bikes, like literally...
Evidently not that much less work if it’s a “pretty easy affair”. Electric mopeds in China or Thailand or anywhere else they’re popular are made of the exact same parts as e-bikes, like literally the same parts out of the same factories. The only difference is that it doesn’t have a pedal. They’re usually a fair bit cheaper as well, since they are less complex. They’re not heavier, nor less maneuverable.
It is true that there’s better infrastructure for repair in the west, because bike shops exist but the counterparts for electric moped/scooters don’t, but that’s not an inherent property of either.
And...I want to pedal, for traction control. And that pedaling is providing energy that the batteries no longer have to. So I don't see how it's possible they're as light.
And...I want to pedal, for traction control. And that pedaling is providing energy that the batteries no longer have to. So I don't see how it's possible they're as light.
You can't convince someone who's dead set against a certain type of vehicle! I love my ebike because it has decently large wheels to smooth out bumps in the road (not like the little electric...
You can't convince someone who's dead set against a certain type of vehicle! I love my ebike because it has decently large wheels to smooth out bumps in the road (not like the little electric scooters available for short-term rentals) and I can just turn off the assistance when I want, which means I get great range out of the thing without a hulking great battery.
There is clearly a niche for electric scooters, bikes AND mopeds, it's not an either/or deal here. And if each one can remove a whole car (or, let's be real, a huge SUV/truck) from the road, all the better for everyone.
I think it's that you still get to do some exercise, but you can also do a 10km commute without sweating buckets by the time you get to wherever you wanted.
I think it's that you still get to do some exercise, but you can also do a 10km commute without sweating buckets by the time you get to wherever you wanted.
That's more of a supply and demand thing. In the end, cheap electric scooters and cheap e-bikes are made of the same components. You can usually get them in China, which is where both are...
That's more of a supply and demand thing. In the end, cheap electric scooters and cheap e-bikes are made of the same components. You can usually get them in China, which is where both are manufactured for the most part, for like 3000-4000 rmb, which is like 400 usd.
In the US, biking is often more of a recreational activity. I know people who have bike racks on their cars that can handle their e-bikes. California has some great parks, and they drive to...
In the US, biking is often more of a recreational activity. I know people who have bike racks on their cars that can handle their e-bikes. California has some great parks, and they drive to trailheads where they can go for a ride on bike trails. I know a nice ridge trail that exhausted me on a regular bike, but the people with e-bikes looked like they were having fun.
The vehicles allowed on bike trails are restricted. Here are the rules for California.
There's also a perception that driving scooters in traffic feels dangerous. E-bikes can also be dangerous if you're tempted to go too fast or ride in traffic, but it can be avoided.
If you have one, maybe you'll take it to the grocery store now and then (we do, with regular bikes) but it's generally not considered a complete substitute for a car. Bike trips can substitute for some car trips on low-traffic routes. Fewer car trips is better, right?
This might be an older versus younger people perspective, too. Younger people take more risks.
As far as other countries go, it seems that modest electric cars (closer to golf carts) are pretty popular in China.
I can often tell when articles about green energy and self-sufficiency with solar are written from people living in southern California. There's just this handwavy blindness to how often temps are...
This author is writing from the perspective of someone who lives in Paris
I can often tell when articles about green energy and self-sufficiency with solar are written from people living in southern California. There's just this handwavy blindness to how often temps are over 90 and under 40 elsewhere. Those are really the two biggest thresholds where energy demand skyrockets to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures.
The future should be more and more on public transport. Where I live, if you don't get a monthly pass because you don't ride the subway every day, it's incredibly expensive. Close to 4 euros per...
The future should be more and more on public transport. Where I live, if you don't get a monthly pass because you don't ride the subway every day, it's incredibly expensive. Close to 4 euros per ride, one-way. So if I want to go with my wife in the city center and back, I would have to pay close to 16 euros. It would be a somewhat short ride, around 5 stops.
I'm all for saving the environment but at that price, I will take the car.
E-bikes don't make sense at all. If we are talking those bikes with pedals and not motorcycles. Why? Because if you opt for e-bike you should in my mind use nomal bike. You will get some exercise...
E-bikes don't make sense at all. If we are talking those bikes with pedals and not motorcycles. Why? Because if you opt for e-bike you should in my mind use nomal bike. You will get some exercise and you will be much more eco-friendly by not using unnecessary electronics crap. I always say e-bikes are for lazy people - and this comes from lazy person that has nomal bike.
For abloute clearance: My argument is not pro-car, it's anti-e-bike.
This is possibly the most patently ridiculous argument against ebikes for transit. They allow someone to bike much longer distances than they could with a non-e bike. If your goal is transit, this...
This is possibly the most patently ridiculous argument against ebikes for transit. They allow someone to bike much longer distances than they could with a non-e bike. If your goal is transit, this is objectively an improvement. Not everyone bikes purely for physical fitness and plenty of people want to travel distances that would be easy for them on ebikes but that they wouldn't want to travel using an ordinary bike. Opposing ebikes in such circumstances because they're "lazy" is pro-car, because that's most often the alternative mode of transportation these people would take.
I think the e-bike is a good balance between "people get some exercise" and "people who aren't very fit can use them". Lots of people aren't particularly fit, want to travel longer distances, want...
I think the e-bike is a good balance between "people get some exercise" and "people who aren't very fit can use them". Lots of people aren't particularly fit, want to travel longer distances, want to avoid being really sweaty when they arrive at their destination and e-bikes are a great solution for them.
I've been feeling more bearish about e-bikes lately, originally I thought same as you, they seemed to be a perfect replacement to cars in terms of their space utilization, safety (in protected...
I've been feeling more bearish about e-bikes lately, originally I thought same as you, they seemed to be a perfect replacement to cars in terms of their space utilization, safety (in protected lanes) and economy, but in reality what I've seen is maybe, the car-ificarion of e-bikes, and it seems to be the worst of both worlds a lot of the time.
People want comfort, so they add bigger tires and suspension, that adds weight, people want range, so they add more batteries, which adds weight, it's now heavier, so it needs beefier brakes, adds weight, now it's 50+ lbs, so borderline impossible to use without the assist for most, and now not only is it massive (and therefore inconvenient to move around) and they are way more expensive (which is a huge barrier to entry as well as more likely to be stolen). All of those to me are massive downsides. Lightweight bikes are much easier for people, cheaper (aluminum frames aren't too bad) and have a lower carbon footprint to make each one, ideally, protected bike lanes, maybe covered bike lanes eventually, would make commuting by bike more accessible without giving us this weird half measure of e-bikes without a clear indication of why we need to go that direction first
Great points! Yeah, I can see reason in that. As I write under another reply - I see people using ebikes for short hikes here which could be done even by me (not fit, not used to exercise). I can...
Great points! Yeah, I can see reason in that.
As I write under another reply - I see people using ebikes for short hikes here which could be done even by me (not fit, not used to exercise). I can see why seniors like them though - it enables them to bike (I mean at all - they won't be abke without assistance).
yeah I don't think that was a good way of presenting it. Disabled people are indeed often unable to drive, and that should be considered when it comes to accessibility. But "typically" is too...
yeah I don't think that was a good way of presenting it. Disabled people are indeed often unable to drive, and that should be considered when it comes to accessibility. But "typically" is too strong -- a lot of disabled people do drive, even if it is a lower percentage than nondisabled people. And in the US this is often because other options are inadequate and inaccessible to them.
Agreed! That's why I asked for some clarification. I'm disabled and I drive, as do most of the other disabled people I know. It's a huge spectrum, and it's frustrating that articles and...
Agreed! That's why I asked for some clarification. I'm disabled and I drive, as do most of the other disabled people I know. It's a huge spectrum, and it's frustrating that articles and discussions about altering infrastructure tend to either leave us out altogether, or make sweeping generalizations and ignore all the nuance. Some other comments already elucidated many of these concerns, luckily.
Maybe a better question would be, "What percentage of drivers are disabled in some way?" I'll try to find something.
Why do disabled and elderly people need to use cars? There are lots of technologies such as mobility scooters, bicycles designed for disabled people, public transport, etc around. In fact getting...
Why do disabled and elderly people need to use cars?
There are lots of technologies such as mobility scooters, bicycles designed for disabled people, public transport, etc around. In fact getting rid of cars creates more space for these people.
Whether visibly "disabled" or not, a substantial number of people have conditions that come with heat, cold, sun, and/or abrasion intolerance. Diabetes, photo-toxic medications, kidney disease,...
Whether visibly "disabled" or not, a substantial number of people have conditions that come with heat, cold, sun, and/or abrasion intolerance. Diabetes, photo-toxic medications, kidney disease, cold-induced vasospasm, etc. shouldn't require people to give up their independence altogether. In cases like that, where adequate public transit isn't available and safely accessible, a car is an assistive device.
Maybe I spend too much time working around sick people (and "working around" my own limitations - I miss bicycling!) and have an availability bias. But the aggressive insistence that bicycles will solve everything instantly for everyone is grating. If you can use a bicycle safely, fine. If you're fortunate enough to have decent public transit infrastructure, great! Now we need solutions for the remaining 70% of the population, that hopefully don't require tearing down everything and rebuilding from scratch.
***I'm holding out hope that this isn't vaporware - it bridges transit gaps more efficiently and affordably than cars, and offers better shelter/cargo options than bikes, scooters, golf carts, etc.
I get where you're coming from regarding the versatility of cars as assistive devices. And I get why you are excited about the nimbusev. However, it's interesting to note that small, car-like...
I get where you're coming from regarding the versatility of cars as assistive devices.
*I'm holding out hope that this isn't vaporware - it bridges transit gaps more efficiently and affordably than cars, and offers better shelter/cargo options than bikes, scooters, golf carts, etc.
And I get why you are excited about the nimbusev. However, it's interesting to note that small, car-like vehicles aren't exactly a new concept. In Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, similar vehicles are quite commonplace. They're known as "brommobiel" in Dutch. Sadly, there's no English Wikipedia page about them, but here's a Google-translated link for reference: Brommobiel. And if you're curious about specific brands, Microcar is a notable example. They are subject to less stringent regulations, are more affordable, and offer greater accessibility in urban environments compared to traditional cars.Electric ones are now also starting to become popular. It does make me wonder if this is an instance of the U.S. being somewhat insulated from solutions that are quite common elsewhere.
There are some U.S. regulations which have served as de facto trade barriers to EU-legal microcars. It looks like the Nimbus EV is taking advantage of a loophole with respect to testing...
There are some U.S. regulations which have served as de facto trade barriers to EU-legal microcars. It looks like the Nimbus EV is taking advantage of a loophole with respect to testing requirements - it's a three-wheeled "autocycle", versus a four-wheeled vehicle which would have to undergo crash and other expensive testing for road-worthiness if capable of > 28 mph.
In any case, I'm one of the folks who can't safely bicycle, or use public transit in most weather conditions (this is an indictment of non-existent or inadequate shelters for stops), and there are millions of others similarly restricted. So please forgive me if I'm a little abrasive about this.
That Nimbus vehicle looks like a Renault Twizy. I've seen a fair few of them around over the years, very nippy little things. The Twizy was succeeded by the "Mobilize Duo", which is VaaS-only (and...
That Nimbus vehicle looks like a Renault Twizy. I've seen a fair few of them around over the years, very nippy little things. The Twizy was succeeded by the "Mobilize Duo", which is VaaS-only (and therefore dead to me).
*Edit to add: I hadn't come across subscription-only vehicles before, but it looks like Renault have been trying it for a while. If you want to pay £600/month (to be fair, it looks fairly comprehensive), and only have a licence to use your car, Renault has you covered.
Moped cars/micro carshave been around since the 80s, these days they also have started to be delivered in electric variants. But in the English speaking world they seem to be hugely unknown, to...
Moped cars/micro carshave been around since the 80s, these days they also have started to be delivered in electric variants.
I've seen lots of Aixam cars* in towns in France and Spain, but never in the big cities (anecdote time!). What's more, they're still quite stigmatised, seen as very uncool, perhaps because they've...
I've seen lots of Aixam cars* in towns in France and Spain, but never in the big cities (anecdote time!). What's more, they're still quite stigmatised, seen as very uncool, perhaps because they've tended to sound like a screeching moped while moving at 30/40 kmh. I think they'd be a lot more viable in a city if there were a greater mass of people using them. If you're the only one in that fragile thing, you're toast, quite frankly. Perhaps we could put limits on axle weights for private cars entering into city centres, and that way make these lighter vehicles safer and a better option?
I suppose this comes down to infrastructure again. In the Netherlands, we generally speaking, have pretty good infrastructure accounting for different types of traffic. As these mini cars are, by...
Perhaps we could put limits on axle weights for private cars entering into city centres, and that way make these lighter vehicles safer and a better option?
I suppose this comes down to infrastructure again. In the Netherlands, we generally speaking, have pretty good infrastructure accounting for different types of traffic. As these mini cars are, by law, limited in power and speed they are for example allowed on bike paths in some cases. Allowing them to avoid roads where cars would drive at much higher speeds than these little cars are capable of.
In a similar sense we do have a lot of traffic calming (see this specifcially) in place in inner cities which makes it so that using these microcars is much less of a safety hazard for the driver.
There is only so much you can do with regulations on vehicles and traffic laws in general if your streets make it too easy to ignore those to begin with.
In the U.S. when they want to limit the speed of traffic in a street they will put up a sign, in some rare instances they'll put up a speed bump. But the street itself is probably still fairly wide and will allow for much higher speeds.
In the Netherlands, streets are often designed so that the driver will automatically drive around the speed limit. This is achieved by making streets/lanes narrower on purpose, for lower speed limits by replacing asphalt for brick roads and many other things.
So even if the speed limits are identical, it is much more likely the Dutch driver is actually closer to it. Not because they necessarily are a better driver or more well-behaved. But simply because the road discourages driving much faster.
To get back to the point. In a situation where proper traffic-calming is in place, using other types of transports than cars is much more natural. As cars are much less of a hazard if they are not allowed to dominate streets to begin with. Which also makes micro cars much more viable in these environments.
To get to places? My great-aunt has cerebral palsy. She can't use a mobility scooter, she needs a specially adapted car which her wheelchair and her carers and all the associated stuff they need...
To get to places?
My great-aunt has cerebral palsy. She can't use a mobility scooter, she needs a specially adapted car which her wheelchair and her carers and all the associated stuff they need to carry around fits into. Doesn't matter how great the buses or trains get, or how many adapted bikes exist, the alternative to a car for her is to remain at home.
Cars are never going to be 100% un-needed, and that's OK. Getting rid of most of them will be fine.
At the same time, there are disabled people who can't drive and for whom other accessible infrastructure is definitely necessary. We should absolutely keep accessibility for the disabled and...
At the same time, there are disabled people who can't drive and for whom other accessible infrastructure is definitely necessary. We should absolutely keep accessibility for the disabled and elderly in mind for all manner of urban design decisions, but the idea that cars are automatically always the more accessible option for all disabled or elderly people seems weirdly common in comments sections like this. Disabled people have a wide range of experiences and access needs!
Anyway, your comment is good, especially your conclusion.
There's an elderly man living a few doors down who uses a covered electric moped like this every day: https://skand.com/fi/tuote/gomoto-2-4/ Costs about the same as a shitty car, but counts as a...
Bikes are a great way to get around a city. Cars take up a huge amount of space relative to walking or cycling. The difference in capacity you can obtain if everyone walks instead of cyclic is...
Bikes are a great way to get around a city. Cars take up a huge amount of space relative to walking or cycling. The difference in capacity you can obtain if everyone walks instead of cyclic is pretty modest.
My point was just that disabled people can get around without cars (I know quite a few who don't own cars). But the whole point of transformative urbanism is to make urban spaces better for everyone, which is why I believe we should get rid of cars. There are lots of ways to make urban spaces and public transport (e.g. buy trains with level boarding rather than stairs in each carriage) more accessible for disabled people. Cars are (in my view) not one of these.
Though half the reason busses are so slow is because of all the cars and stoplights. If we banned the cars, trippled the busses, and eliminated the majority of stoplights (training pedestrians to...
Though half the reason busses are so slow is because of all the cars and stoplights.
If we banned the cars, trippled the busses, and eliminated the majority of stoplights (training pedestrians to make way for the busses), busses could move a lot faster.
The other half of the reason is that the busses can't go directly point to point, and even when there's a point near you that a bus will use to go to another point that is near your destination,...
Though half the reason busses are so slow is because of all the cars and stoplights.
The other half of the reason is that the busses can't go directly point to point, and even when there's a point near you that a bus will use to go to another point that is near your destination, it still has to stop at a bunch of points in-between. People always like to omit that part because it's foundational to the concept and can't be done away with, you're going to have a much longer commute from any public transit just because you're going to have to accommodate EVERYONE'S transit rather than your more specialized subset. It's not something you can optimize out of the design, it is the design.
This is true in some circumstances, but not universally the way you present it. Particularly in urban environments with good metro systems, public transit systems can take advantage of routes that...
you're going to have a much longer commute from any public transit just because you're going to have to accommodate EVERYONE'S transit rather than your more specialized subset
This is true in some circumstances, but not universally the way you present it. Particularly in urban environments with good metro systems, public transit systems can take advantage of routes that are completely unavailable to someone driving a private vehicle and can travel at much faster speeds.
I will agree that it is more often the case with a bus than with other public transport, but again in urban environments this is less clear. Not needing to find parking at one's destination can make even buses outperform one's own car in certain cases, especially short distances in very dense urban areas.
Skateboards and roller-skates need the roads to be pretty damn smooth or you risk a nasty dentist visit. Also it's a huge hassle to take off your skates and switch to normal shoes when going shopping.
Skateboards and roller-skates need the roads to be pretty damn smooth or you risk a nasty dentist visit.
Also it's a huge hassle to take off your skates and switch to normal shoes when going shopping.
The other thing that is never mentioned is groceries and shopping. When I go to the grocery store, how am I supposed to transport all that food home on a bike? You could fit a few small things in...
The other thing that is never mentioned is groceries and shopping.
When I go to the grocery store, how am I supposed to transport all that food home on a bike? You could fit a few small things in a compartment on the bike, but not everything.
People who like to go to the mall and buy a bunch of stuff, same thing. Maybe it's time for a new wardrobe or they're the type of person who enjoys shopping, you can't fit much on a bike.
If I'm going camping, how am I going to fit all my camping gear on a bike? A tent, sleeping bag, clothes, food, stove, etc? Can't fit all that on a bike.
Bikes can be useful for commute and transportation some places but they can never replace vehicles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikepacking/ Going camping with a bike is a huge thing. It's different from the usual American Camping where you roll up 5 meters from a campsite with your Truck or SUV...
If I'm going camping, how am I going to fit all my camping gear on a bike? A tent, sleeping bag, clothes, food, stove, etc? Can't fit all that on a bike.
Going camping with a bike is a huge thing. It's different from the usual American Camping where you roll up 5 meters from a campsite with your Truck or SUV and offload a metric ton of gear.
Works better in countries where we have the right to roam and can just ride to any forest and set up a hammock or a tent.
Bikes don't really need to replace 100% of vehicles or trips. Renting a car or van for the occasional trip is waaaaay cheaper than monthly lease and insurance payments. In many European cities,...
Bikes don't really need to replace 100% of vehicles or trips. Renting a car or van for the occasional trip is waaaaay cheaper than monthly lease and insurance payments. In many European cities, it's common to have lots with rentable cars available as needed.
My grandma is 80, she still bikes everywhere. She has never owned a car nor had a driver's license. We, as a family, got her an e-bike a few years back and now she bikes to her childhood home in...
My grandma is 80, she still bikes everywhere. She has never owned a car nor had a driver's license.
We, as a family, got her an e-bike a few years back and now she bikes to her childhood home in the countryside (still owned by her and her siblings) multiple times every summer. I think it's like 20-25km, about a third of the way is gravel road. She used to do the same trip with a normal bike when she was only 70, but it's easier now.
My grandpa biked with a trike pretty often even though he couldn't walk properly. Also never owned a car nor had a license.
I have a friend whose dad got pretty badly injured in the military and is 99% blind. They bike with a tandem bike regularly.
It's about infrastructure, not about age or fitness. As long as there are safe bike lanes that are maintained all year round (and not American "sidewalks") it's perfectly doable and safe.
Not if your main exercise is walking to and from your car =) The main factors to them being able to bike at that age is the fact that they've been doing it for decades and the fact that it's...
Not if your main exercise is walking to and from your car =)
The main factors to them being able to bike at that age is the fact that they've been doing it for decades and the fact that it's really safe to bike here.
Sure. There are plenty of health issues that are determined by genetics and are largely unavoidable. My grandfather was an active, healthy man until he developed an internal bleeding in his brain...
Sure. There are plenty of health issues that are determined by genetics and are largely unavoidable. My grandfather was an active, healthy man until he developed an internal bleeding in his brain and couldn't leave the house alone anymore. My grandmother was completely healthy and active until she had a sequence of strokes. My mother, completely healthy and active until her knees started acting out. My late mother-in-law had a sequence of seizures that ultimately impaired her motor control of her legs.
None of those things were preventable. They are largely determined by genetic predisposition. And all of those things most certainly prevented them from using a bicycle for transportation.
I don’t mean to minimize your family’s issues, but genes aren’t exactly death sentences. A lot of genetic health issues associated with age are triggered by environment. You can have a gene that...
I don’t mean to minimize your family’s issues, but genes aren’t exactly death sentences. A lot of genetic health issues associated with age are triggered by environment. You can have a gene that predisposes yourself towards an ailment but there are ways you can live to prevent them from manifesting. In many cases it simply means having a good diet and exercising.
Of course this doesn’t change the fact that people who are living with these issues today still shouldn’t ride a bike. I just get irritated at the genes=destiny story.
I fail to see how my grandparents could have been any more active and well taken care of prior to their brain issues. Even more so with 2 doctor kids and 1 doctor grandson. Especially my grandpa...
I fail to see how my grandparents could have been any more active and well taken care of prior to their brain issues. Even more so with 2 doctor kids and 1 doctor grandson.
Especially my grandpa who worked well into his 70s, walking, taking the bus to his workshop and working all day.
He was extremely intelligent, curious, and mentally active.
Sure, genes are not destiny. But sometimes you are just out of luck.
The biggest advantage of a car, the #1 reason I often turn to it when I otherwise wouldn't, is because it's a portable shelter that holds up equally well to wind, heat, and cold. Especially when you're not single and childless.
I fundamentally agree with the premise of the article. But I have a feeling something more like an enclosed electric golf cart, where the top speed is like 20 mph, but still provides a solid enclosure against bad weather will get a lot more uptake and support within cities. Because otherwise, we'd see a lot more motorcycles in cities than SUVs today.
I'd propose a law banning all non-commercial vehicles from having a weight over 500kg in dense cities. The rest will sort itself out.
I'm neither single nor childless, and while I don't see myself being car free for those reasons, I would dramatically reduce my vehicle miles traveled if I had a cargo eBike.
Yeah it being hot and cold suck. But maybe my kid should just grow up to not be a little wuss. He's a hardy lad, he'll be fine.
But what keeps me from biking as much as I'd want are:
1.) Drivers are insane. It is simply not safe with how badly and recklessly people drive here.
2.) I have a walk-up and I have nowhere to store an eBike in a covered and locked space. Not being covered means weather really puts wear on the bike and not being locked means it's a constant target for theft.
Not having a safe place to lock a bike is a real deal-breaker for me. I'm lucky enough to have a parking space that obviously fits a bike (two, actually) easily, but there is no way I would even think of having a bike if I had to lock it up, making it vulnerable to thieves and the weather...
But drivers being basically bad is a huge problem. In my city, painting a bike picture every hundred metres apparently makes a "bike lane". But there are often three lanes in the roadway, and the one nearest the pavement is a bus/taxi-only lane and the middle (the MIDDLE!!!) lane is a "bike" lane. So you have taxis weaving between their lane and the middle "bike" lane (to get past buses - which are also roaring past the cyclist), and normal cars/vans/lorries/murderers in the middle "bike" and fast lanes. It's a real deathtrap and as long as they city council is patting itself on the back as it claims a successful rollout of more bike lanes, I know that my partner will (quite reasonably) refuse to ever look at a bike as a realistic mode of transport. It's really a terrible shame.
So I have a cargo bike, a Bunch bike. I actually really like it, except for a few things:
It's really unstable, especially when empty. The adult peddling is really really high up. In order for me not to nearly topple hitting tiny bumps, I had to insure I always had at least 40 lbs in the cargo area. I learned this after toppling it going 8 mph and needing to make a small dodge that would be trivial on a regular bike.
Turning it is incredibly janky, especially over 5 mph.
I think I will try to replace it with a trike version, where the adult sits lower and the cargo (including child) is in the back.
I still use it quite a bit, but I don't feel safe anytime I'm traveling on any road that isn't 100% smooth...which is basically all of them.
Like, if I drove it any slower I might as well just walk with a wheelbarrow.
I don't disagree fwiw. That's why I'm scoping out one that looks more like a recumbant trike.
Bad drivers are a worry for me too for any kind of bike, especially with how one has to cross or ride alongside high speed roads to get anywhere in my suburb.
While I have a place to keep a bike at home (a garage), that doesn’t help when I need to leave my bike parked unattended while out and about. Even if it’s locked there’s a good chance it’ll get stolen for anything more than a momentary stop, and the higher value one’s bike looks the more of a target it is. Any bike I’d buy would need to be either a folding bike I can carry with me (which is awkward for e.g. grocery runs) or the most basic cheap Walmart bike I can find so it’s not painful to replace.
It feels like the best I can get away with is a small street legal car, something like a Yaris or Fit. Would go smaller than that with an LSV/NEV of some sort, but then you run into street legality problems.
Pretty much why I don't bike. I'll admit, I'm lazy, so it's never the first thing to come to mind, but also, every time I've done it, I've been been nearly hit or need to cross sketchy streets or areas. My options for riding to the park are thus:
Ride along a sidewalk that isn't more than 3' wide and not taken care of (different levels, garbage, people, etc), then cross a 6-Lane road, cross half a dozen or more ingress/egresses for parking lots, cross another 6-lane road and finally two residential streets (which aren't bad at all).
Go through a parking lot, which entails lifting my bike (with trailer, with 70lbs worth of kids in the back) over and down a 2' concrete wall (Both ways, if I return this way), navigate a pitted, pot-holed parking lot, which is mostly empty, so that's nice, but due to this encourages people to shortcut/speed through it, cross an intersection where two 6-lane strodes intersect, then the two residential streets later on.
Then there's dodging all the homeless and their needles/refuse strewn about and making sure wherever I park, I can keep an eye on my bike so it isn't stolen.
It's just too much asspain and danger. I love riding my bike and bringing the kids along with me, but I'm unwilling to put my life at risk, especially when it also involves lots of asspain. I'm not the type that biking is a hobby for me, but I'd be willing to do it much more often if it were significantly easier than driving, which isn't the case.
Yeah the theft is the other big concern I forgot to mention. My homeowner's insurance will cover bicycle theft, but only up to $500. I'm not sure if there's a higher reimbursement for eBike theft, because that's reasonable for a bike but not for an eBike. And it's a giant hassle besides.
Plus the cops don't take bike thievery seriously. Nowadays people are putting Tiles or Airtags in their bikes and able to physically take them to the police with the actual coordinates of where it is and they still don't do anything.
We really, really need to up the penalties for bicycle theft. The penalties really don't reflect the magnitude of the crime.
Consider the case of horse theft. In many times in history, horse theft was severely punished, including up to torture and execution.
There are two ways to treat theft. You can judge the severity of the theft by the monetary cost of the item stolen, or you can charge based on the effect losing the object has on the victim. In some applications, context can matter beyond fair market value. If I steal a gallon of water from a hose at your house, I'm not hurting you beyond literal pennies in damages. You probably wouldn't even notice the missing water or the slightly increased water bill. But imagine I steal a gallon of water, your only gallon of water, while you're trying to hike through a desert. The fair market value of that water is still just a few pennies, but my actions may result in your death. Context matters for theft, and often laws are written to attempt to take that into account.
This is why horse theft was often treated far harsher than stealing say, an amount of grain equal in value to that horse. If you steal someone's horse in the wilderness, you're stranding them, possibly to their doom. If you steal the horse or oxen of a farmer, you may be literally taking away their ability to feed their family. In olden days, that family might starve because of your theft.
And it goes forward with cars. Many states have special laws relating to the theft of automobiles. Yes, there are still general theft laws based on the value of the object stolen, but the law makes special provision for cars. Again, this is because of the effect this theft has on the victim. Imagine someone owns a single car, an old vehicle worth only $5k. In their house they also have possessions, think mixed electronics, that are also worth $5k. Stealing their only vehicle is going to hurt them a lot more than stealing their television and other electronics, even if they have the same fair market value. The law recognizes that when people lose their vehicles, they lose mobility. They can no longer get to work, take their kids to school, go shopping, etc. When you steal a car, you are not just stealing a vehicle, you are potentially robbing someone of their livelihood. And the law treats car theft with the seriousness it deserves.
But bicycles? The law treats bicycles as toys. They're seen as exercise and sporting equipment, not a core mode of transportation. If someone steals your bike, they can only face general theft charges based on the fair market value of the bike. Laws haven't been written that carve out bike theft as a special kind of theft, like we have for automobiles.
We need new laws to treat bike theft with the seriousness it deserves. Cities and states are trying to get serious about climate action and trying to do whatever they can to get people to take alternate forms of transportation. But the law hasn't caught up to this reality. Cities build bike lanes trying to get people to treat bikes as serious and viable modes of practical transportation, but the law still treats bikes like toys. If you want people to really rely on bikes and respect them as viable modes of transport, the law needs to reflect this.
Stealing a bike should have the same penalties as stealing a car. Again, we have special laws that carve out serious felonies specifically for stealing cars. Even if your car is a $500 barely-running beater, if someone steals that, they can be prosecuted for a serious felony. But if someone steals your $500 bicycle, even if it's your only form of transportation, the thief will at most be charged under general theft laws, the same as if they stole $500 of random goods from Walmart.
This is why police don't take bike theft seriously. Bike theft is hard to investigate. And they know that even if they beat the odds and manage to catch a bike thief, the law is on their side. Even if they can get a conviction for the theft of a bike, they'll only get a few months in jail at most. All that work from the police department's side just means a single bike thief is out of commission for a month or two. From the cop's perspective, there are better ways to spend scarce resources.
But imagine if bike theft was a serious felony, and busting someone for bike theft would get them 5-10 years in prison. In this case, it's actually worth going after the bike thieves. Busting a bike thief would result in them being off the streets for quite awhile. In that case, it becomes much easier to justify police resources, as it would actually make a meaningful impact on protecting citizens.
We need new laws that treat bike theft with the seriousness it deserves. The law is wildly inconsistent with most governments' stated goals of wanting people to use bikes as a viable means of transportation. We need to treat bike theft as seriously as vehicle theft. Until we do that, it's no wonder that many people view bicycles as toys rather than a serious mode of transport. After all, why should people respect bicycle riders, when the law clearly doesn't?
That cap is actually weridly low for bicycles. Sure, that will cover pretty much all the bikes they sell at Walmart, but quality bikes can easily go over that. Decent quality mountain bikes can easily cost double that.
I think if you asked your insurance company they could cover it under a "valuable property" policy extension.
Yeah. I sort of consciously bought a bike that was under the cap for that reason. No carbon fiber for me!
I had the opposite experience. When my tracked e-bike got stolen, I gave the location to the police and they very promptly retrieved my bike and arrested the guy. In my experience, police actually like easy, shut-and-close cases.
Cold and weather can certainly be a problem regardless of age depending on the location in the US. For example we have six inches of snow on the roads today, and wind makes the temperature feel like -20f. No amount of clothing will make a bike ride as comfortable as a car in this weather.
It's pretty wild to call places where tens of millions of people live (e.g. Canada) "an edge case".
I feel like you've been discounting other peoples' lived experiences all over this thread. You don't live in a frigid environment and you don't have kids - maybe listen & learn from people who are in that situation, instead of trying to convince them they're going about life wrong.
Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (But Finnish People Can)
One of the best parts of the internet is that you can reach such a huge variety of people in all sorts of places and circumstances. One of the worst parts of the internet is that you can reach such a huge variety of people in all sorts of places and circumstances.
I just wanted to say that I understand the other commenter's frustration. Any suggestion that's probably applicable to most people on the internet is met with opposition by the minority who it doesn't apply to. Maybe sometimes you want to talk about hiking trails without having to address amputees and paraplegics. Maybe sometimes you want to talk about bikes without having to address Canadians, given that the majority of the world population lives in areas that don't get nearly so cold.
I don't have enough experience with cold weather to have an opinion on this, but I think it's fair for someone to want to discuss the idea that kids can handle fairly cold weather with the understanding that -21 degrees isn't necessarily what they're talking about. Suggesting that someone "listen & learn" is shutting down the conversation, especially when the standard of "frigid" is apparently even colder than -21F. Everyone is an outlier in some way. If you live in Canada, you are definitely an outlier in how cold your climate is.
You need to take into account the context of this thread. The top-level comment is about how cars solve the problem of transporting 1. children 2. in extreme weather.
I'm not trying to shut down someone who wants to talk about bikes vs. cars in other circumstances. But you can't just disregard the premise of the discussion. You have to engage with the topic, not just hand-wave the very case being discussed as "an edge case."
That's the thing, I don't think this discussion was about "extreme" weather to start with.
The top level comment says "wind, heat, and cold," and "bad weather." While "cold" and "bad" are relative terms subject to interpretation, I don't think we necessarily have to cover what "cold" means in Winnipeg or Iqaluit. The topic is the adoption of electric bikes in general, not that electric bikes are appropriate for all climate zones.
Fair enough. I was reacting more to the mid-level comment about more extreme weather.
I still think it's rather disrespectful to claim that someone's lived experience is actually just media hype; that's mainly what I'm reacting to, I suppose.
That is not what was said though. To be frank, having gone over this conversation, I feel like you might have reached conclusions before reading and internalizing the comment you replied to. Which happens a lot on the internet and makes conversations more heated than they really ought to be.
Let's go back to the comment you took issue with. It started out with this.
Note the bold bit. While there are indeed a lot of Canadians, compared to how many people are down south from Canada, the Canadian winter conditions are still an edge case in the context of the overall conversation. More importantly, what the person you replied to said is not "media hype" but that the –30°C (–21°F) cases are picked up by the media and reported on as if those are true everywhere.
Something they reaffirm further down in their comment again
Then they close it down with this remark
I honestly think they have been about as clear as they can be.
I mean, do you live somewhere that gets cold? The temperature recorded is not the only thing that matters. The wind has a fantastic effect on the perceived temperature. I live in Ohio and it’s regularly in the tens of degrees Fahrenheit. But with wind, the windchill makes it feel well below 0f.
I don’t think this is an edge case, but the reality for millions of midwestern and north eastern Americans.
Also I’m not arguing against e-bikes. I personally would love to get one. But unfortunately I don’t think I’d be able to use one all of the year, or for all of my daily travel.
I'm just going to caveat this with the American South currently in the grips of freezes breaking pipes all over the place (lows in the 10s fahrenheit without wind chills) and the South usually in the grips of a triple digit heatwave (with wet bulbs in the black) even outside of the logistical nightmare that is US infrastructure - most families can barely afford food, let alone $3k+ for a bike, trailer, safety gear, and various weather gears...
Well, let's just say the US might be better positioned to subside EV bikes but will continue to incentivize cars regardless.
Yeah I don’t disagree. I’d love to see some more adoption of these things. Just pointing out that for a substantial number of people I don’t think they could ever truly replace cars. But just be a supplement.
It would be great to get to a place where cars are considered the supplement instead, with other modes considered the default.
I live in a cold, wet, windy place and have a kid. We have an electric cargo bike and a non electric commuter with a seat on the back for her. The car is only necessary for safety (being risk averse) maybe 10% of the time throughout the year.
And just to pile on extreme heat is an issue as well
Yeah I feel e-bikes would be useless here in Toronto for at 3-4 months a year, and uncomfortable for another 1 or 2.
I live in Houston, a noted car centric city......and even if we were more dense to where biking would be feasible from a time perspective, the climate just isn't cooperative to it. Ignoring cold, it's too damn hot and humid in the summer, and it rains far too much to be exposed to the elements in any form. That's not something you can easily work around, until E-bikes start having Aircon when it's 98° nobody wants to be biking. That's millions of people in Houston alone, include TX proper, or Arizona, or the rest of the gulf Coast where it's blistering hot, nobody bikes because it's not comfortable. I'd love to when the weather permits, I am not in love with driving, but cars are convenient, that's why they won out anywhere that didn't have sufficient public transit
But cars being more convenient and lack of sufficient public transit aren't things that appeared out of nowhere. They're the result of policy decisions. I don't expect all of Houston to start biking tomorrow as it's currently designed. No one does. But making policy decisions that make it easier and safer to be a pedestrian or cyclist will increase the number of people who cycle.
I find that in threads like this, North Americans have a tendency to defend themselves like advocates are trying to force them personally to start biking without any other societal changes. But most people arguing for walkable cities or better cycling infrastructure are advocating for improvements in policy. We're not trying to make you feel morally inferior for not cycling in an environment where it's hostile, we're advocating for changing urban infrastructure in ways that make walking, cycling, and taking public transport more viable.
In many parts of Southeast Asia, you see comparable levels of heat, humidity, and rainfall, yet tons of folks commute (sometimes with the whole family) by moped. The key for making bicycle commuting feasible is good urban design, including lots of trees for cover.
I live in suburban South Carolina, so I wouldn’t want to ride a bike on many of these wide stroads lacking any trees. But in denser parts, with street trees and slower cars, sure.
I think some of this is the case of if they could have, they would have, southeast Asia didn't have the same type of manufacturing that the US did through the early 20th century, when car centric culture was in full swing. Not to mention cars were more expensive, and those areas were poorer than the US, too. In some ways, maybe mopeds are a better alternative to cars, but they feel very similar, people still chose the fossil fuels, polluting, more dangerous options over biking or walking, and there was less central planning around cars, I suppose. I seriously would love to bike/walk more, but it just....well it is a long way off. Houston is making some significant strides with protected bike lanes though, which I'm happy about
I'm just gonna say it sounds like you've never tried to wrangle a 2 year old into just shoes and a coat. This can be a 30 minute process unless you're willing to induce brute-force trauma. And that's just, bare minimum to get outside of the house. Biking only works if your time has no meaning.
Most bike trailers rated for kids top out at 50 lbs. Some top out at 100 lbs. And most can't fit a 4 year old that is in the 90% percentile for height. Both of my kids are at the 95% for height. I had approximately a 1 year window where I would have been able to tow my kids safely.
A 5 year old isn't going to be able to ride their bike for 2 miles inside of 30 minutes. My 5 year old was too large to reasonably fit into any bike trailer that would also house the toddler. Plus the weight disparity of the two would have made turns...interesting.
And I live in an area where I'll even contemplate doing these things. But when I lived in a more dense suburb of Philadelphia? I feared too much for my own life biking solo and would often walk instead if I could...there's no way in hell I would bike my kids around.
I do have an electric cargo bike, but that has its own fair share of problems. I intend to replace it with a different model when funds free up again, because that might solve some of these things.
It was literally several degrees below freezing for the past few days with a windchill pushing it even further. At different points we would get rain that would immediately freeze where it landed (that is, when it wasn't straight up sleet or hail). This coming off a summer that saw weeks straight with temps over 100F/38C and a dew point pushing 80F/26C.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you don't live somewhere with weather like that, yeah?
My weather app currently has an extreme weather advisory for wind chill down to -15F, and people are having pipes break. It's been like this for a week...and this is in a "warmer" part of the US that routinely hits triple digits in the summer; it's a warmer area than where I grew up, where this sort of winter weather is very common.
I can't emphasize enough that people die and sustain injuries from prolonged exposure to cold temperatures. Then in the summer, heat stroke is a real issue, and rising wet bulb temperatures are increasing the risk.
I know it's a common card folks pull out in these discussions, but I lived in the Netherlands for a year and it is completely viable to commute/shop/transport kids by bike even in foul weather. There were days below freezing, snowy days, windy days, it didn't matter; moms and dads would still be out there with their Bakfiets ferrying kids to and fro. The children that were old enough to bike on their own did as well. My own commute (through the center of Amsterdam as well) often had long sections that saw me handle bar to handle bar with troves of kids on their way to school. It was very fun.
I think we have a different concept for what is "acceptable" for children to endure domestically. The cold, the snow, and the rain are things kids should avoid, but elsewhere they are just everyday parts of life.
Yeah but the Netherlands has famously great biking infrastructure. I wouldn't commute by bike in Toronto especially in the winter, I don't wanna die lol
Preaching to the choir! I'm US based now and the infrastructure by us leaves a lot to be desired as well. I think it's a if a city builds it, they will come situation. I just was adding in a little perspective to the idea that weather is the factor that prevents use/adoption. It's not, it's poor infrastructure.
I'd say weather prevents adoption because it is yet another hurdle, making it just that more inconvienient.
It's pretty damn hard to voluntarily give up something that both saves time and improves comfort, even if you solve the 'fear of death' problem.
Totally. I just felt like it was being used as a catch all for "you can't do it in cold climates, not a I wouldn't do it in cold climates. Less people will bike if it's colder, but you still can.
Agreed, but that's why we need to deprioritize car dominance. This is a key part of the argument that it's just a given that car travel is the fastest. It's not, we've just prioritized it so that it is. Cars are big and inefficient, they create traffic and require huge amounts of parking. If you had adequate rail/bike infrastructure it's is actually faster, beyond just safer. The big caveat here is this is true in high density areas. The rural areas can keep there roads and cars, I have no issue with that. But in urban or suburban centers the car is only the choice option because we've made it so, and chose to 80 years ago. Considering a growing global population, increase urban/suburban density, issues with traffic/pollution, and technological innovations (i.e. electric bikes and high speed trains), I think it's time to rethink our priorities.
I would love this, if it were more normalised. I have no doubt that if they are unusual, they will be ruthlessly and dangerously bullied by drivers of larger vehicles.
Yeah... Some of the places with great cycling structure are quite cold, sometimes snowy. And I know most people here are on colder climates, but let me tell you, even 25C can be a challenge -- and where I'm from that's a cool day! Imagine cycling when it is 30C, 38C, or even 40C with high humidity. If you're athletic enough you'll probably get there, but you will be stinking and drenched in sweat. At the very least you'll need a shower and a place to change. There's also global warming: I distinctly remember being able to cycle in my city at noon. That is not true anymore (and no, this not just me getting older).
This makes sense where I live, where things are far apart and public transportation is lacking. I can use my bike or scooter until the wind chill gets cold enough that I start needing ski goggles and snow pants, and then it is often too inconvenient to change at the destination and I have to switch to a car.
But contrast this with walkable places like NYC. People don't need to own a car for the cold winters, even with families.
My problem is I wouldn't want to live in a city like NYC, even if it is walkable. It's too crowded.
I think weight restrictions are a good idea, but it is probably better to introduce a 2 or 3 tonne restriction first on safety grounds (extremely heavy SUVs are incredibly dangerous for pedestrians) before moving to move radical territory.
In France they have Voiturettes. Very similar concept to your idea and drivable by 14 year old and ups with no licence needed.
https://www.onlygoodnewsdaily.com/post/france-s-voiturettes
I’ve always found the obsession in western media over e-bikes a little odd. They feel like the an unnecessary middle option mostly born to circumvent driving regulations. One on hand, you have the bike, which will always be the cheapest option, and also a form of exercise. On the other you have an electric moped or scooter, which is far more practical as a transportation option.
Pedal assist ebikes just feel weird to me. The only advantage I’ve read is that you don’t need a drivers license for them but that sounds more like a quirks of legal systems.
A pedal-assisted ebike can turn a half-hour slog into a pretty easy affair. It "smoothes out" ups and downs (if that's an issue where the commuter lives). Altogether, it means that you don't need to be in shape to transition your commute to a bike, so older/unfit/etc. people can now get on a bike.
And because you can normally choose how much help you want the motor to provide, you can scale up your work relative to the motor's work as you get more comfortable with the workout (or keep the workout to a minimum if you need to reduce sweatiness).
So it’s some ungodly fusion between a peloton and an electric scooter? At least have a proper throttle. The idea that there’s vehicles where there’s an entire electric motor but it only turns on when you complete rotation on a pedal is just ???.
What would be the benefit over a scooter be other than bypassing driving laws?
Well, the motor is doing less work since you're getting it going. That means the whole package can be much lighter. Not to mention that it feels good to perform aerobic exercise. I'd rather drive an ebike with panniers than a scooter because they both have roughly the same limitations, but one of them is more modular, maneuverable, and provides the opportunity for exercise while allowing for the rider to say "nah nevermind" with the flip of a switch.
Most ebikes do have a throttle, by the way. Not a proper one, since they won't start the motor, but that's literally half a revolution.
Evidently not that much less work if it’s a “pretty easy affair”. Electric mopeds in China or Thailand or anywhere else they’re popular are made of the exact same parts as e-bikes, like literally the same parts out of the same factories. The only difference is that it doesn’t have a pedal. They’re usually a fair bit cheaper as well, since they are less complex. They’re not heavier, nor less maneuverable.
It is true that there’s better infrastructure for repair in the west, because bike shops exist but the counterparts for electric moped/scooters don’t, but that’s not an inherent property of either.
And...I want to pedal, for traction control. And that pedaling is providing energy that the batteries no longer have to. So I don't see how it's possible they're as light.
You can't convince someone who's dead set against a certain type of vehicle! I love my ebike because it has decently large wheels to smooth out bumps in the road (not like the little electric scooters available for short-term rentals) and I can just turn off the assistance when I want, which means I get great range out of the thing without a hulking great battery.
There is clearly a niche for electric scooters, bikes AND mopeds, it's not an either/or deal here. And if each one can remove a whole car (or, let's be real, a huge SUV/truck) from the road, all the better for everyone.
I think it's that you still get to do some exercise, but you can also do a 10km commute without sweating buckets by the time you get to wherever you wanted.
Price perhaps ? Where I live, a cheap E-Scooter is 4000 chf while a cheap E-bike is 900.
That's more of a supply and demand thing. In the end, cheap electric scooters and cheap e-bikes are made of the same components. You can usually get them in China, which is where both are manufactured for the most part, for like 3000-4000 rmb, which is like 400 usd.
Also I can take an e-bike to the dedicated, locked and warm bike storage room at the office.
I can't do that with a scooter of any kind.
In the US, biking is often more of a recreational activity. I know people who have bike racks on their cars that can handle their e-bikes. California has some great parks, and they drive to trailheads where they can go for a ride on bike trails. I know a nice ridge trail that exhausted me on a regular bike, but the people with e-bikes looked like they were having fun.
The vehicles allowed on bike trails are restricted. Here are the rules for California.
There's also a perception that driving scooters in traffic feels dangerous. E-bikes can also be dangerous if you're tempted to go too fast or ride in traffic, but it can be avoided.
If you have one, maybe you'll take it to the grocery store now and then (we do, with regular bikes) but it's generally not considered a complete substitute for a car. Bike trips can substitute for some car trips on low-traffic routes. Fewer car trips is better, right?
This might be an older versus younger people perspective, too. Younger people take more risks.
As far as other countries go, it seems that modest electric cars (closer to golf carts) are pretty popular in China.
I can often tell when articles about green energy and self-sufficiency with solar are written from people living in southern California. There's just this handwavy blindness to how often temps are over 90 and under 40 elsewhere. Those are really the two biggest thresholds where energy demand skyrockets to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/3jdJ0
The future should be more and more on public transport. Where I live, if you don't get a monthly pass because you don't ride the subway every day, it's incredibly expensive. Close to 4 euros per ride, one-way. So if I want to go with my wife in the city center and back, I would have to pay close to 16 euros. It would be a somewhat short ride, around 5 stops.
I'm all for saving the environment but at that price, I will take the car.
E-bikes don't make sense at all. If we are talking those bikes with pedals and not motorcycles. Why? Because if you opt for e-bike you should in my mind use nomal bike. You will get some exercise and you will be much more eco-friendly by not using unnecessary electronics crap. I always say e-bikes are for lazy people - and this comes from lazy person that has nomal bike.
For abloute clearance: My argument is not pro-car, it's anti-e-bike.
This is possibly the most patently ridiculous argument against ebikes for transit. They allow someone to bike much longer distances than they could with a non-e bike. If your goal is transit, this is objectively an improvement. Not everyone bikes purely for physical fitness and plenty of people want to travel distances that would be easy for them on ebikes but that they wouldn't want to travel using an ordinary bike. Opposing ebikes in such circumstances because they're "lazy" is pro-car, because that's most often the alternative mode of transportation these people would take.
I speak from experience in my part of the world where people bike for a few kilometers which could be easily accomplished on normal bike IMO.
I think the e-bike is a good balance between "people get some exercise" and "people who aren't very fit can use them". Lots of people aren't particularly fit, want to travel longer distances, want to avoid being really sweaty when they arrive at their destination and e-bikes are a great solution for them.
I've been feeling more bearish about e-bikes lately, originally I thought same as you, they seemed to be a perfect replacement to cars in terms of their space utilization, safety (in protected lanes) and economy, but in reality what I've seen is maybe, the car-ificarion of e-bikes, and it seems to be the worst of both worlds a lot of the time.
People want comfort, so they add bigger tires and suspension, that adds weight, people want range, so they add more batteries, which adds weight, it's now heavier, so it needs beefier brakes, adds weight, now it's 50+ lbs, so borderline impossible to use without the assist for most, and now not only is it massive (and therefore inconvenient to move around) and they are way more expensive (which is a huge barrier to entry as well as more likely to be stolen). All of those to me are massive downsides. Lightweight bikes are much easier for people, cheaper (aluminum frames aren't too bad) and have a lower carbon footprint to make each one, ideally, protected bike lanes, maybe covered bike lanes eventually, would make commuting by bike more accessible without giving us this weird half measure of e-bikes without a clear indication of why we need to go that direction first
Great points! Yeah, I can see reason in that.
As I write under another reply - I see people using ebikes for short hikes here which could be done even by me (not fit, not used to exercise). I can see why seniors like them though - it enables them to bike (I mean at all - they won't be abke without assistance).
People say "car free" a lot and that's bad enough. Taxis (at least) are pretty important.
Are you sure that it is really never, ever discussed? Because imho this idea is mentioned most of the times.
What's your basis for this assumption?
yeah I don't think that was a good way of presenting it. Disabled people are indeed often unable to drive, and that should be considered when it comes to accessibility. But "typically" is too strong -- a lot of disabled people do drive, even if it is a lower percentage than nondisabled people. And in the US this is often because other options are inadequate and inaccessible to them.
Agreed! That's why I asked for some clarification. I'm disabled and I drive, as do most of the other disabled people I know. It's a huge spectrum, and it's frustrating that articles and discussions about altering infrastructure tend to either leave us out altogether, or make sweeping generalizations and ignore all the nuance. Some other comments already elucidated many of these concerns, luckily.
Maybe a better question would be, "What percentage of drivers are disabled in some way?" I'll try to find something.
Why do disabled and elderly people need to use cars?
There are lots of technologies such as mobility scooters, bicycles designed for disabled people, public transport, etc around. In fact getting rid of cars creates more space for these people.
If anything, I would like the elderly to stop driving cars. At least without more frequent mandatory retesting.
Whether visibly "disabled" or not, a substantial number of people have conditions that come with heat, cold, sun, and/or abrasion intolerance. Diabetes, photo-toxic medications, kidney disease, cold-induced vasospasm, etc. shouldn't require people to give up their independence altogether. In cases like that, where adequate public transit isn't available and safely accessible, a car is an assistive device.
Maybe I spend too much time working around sick people (and "working around" my own limitations - I miss bicycling!) and have an availability bias. But the aggressive insistence that bicycles will solve everything instantly for everyone is grating. If you can use a bicycle safely, fine. If you're fortunate enough to have decent public transit infrastructure, great! Now we need solutions for the remaining 70% of the population, that hopefully don't require tearing down everything and rebuilding from scratch.
***I'm holding out hope that this isn't vaporware - it bridges transit gaps more efficiently and affordably than cars, and offers better shelter/cargo options than bikes, scooters, golf carts, etc.
I get where you're coming from regarding the versatility of cars as assistive devices.
And I get why you are excited about the nimbusev. However, it's interesting to note that small, car-like vehicles aren't exactly a new concept. In Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, similar vehicles are quite commonplace. They're known as "brommobiel" in Dutch. Sadly, there's no English Wikipedia page about them, but here's a Google-translated link for reference: Brommobiel. And if you're curious about specific brands, Microcar is a notable example. They are subject to less stringent regulations, are more affordable, and offer greater accessibility in urban environments compared to traditional cars.Electric ones are now also starting to become popular. It does make me wonder if this is an instance of the U.S. being somewhat insulated from solutions that are quite common elsewhere.
There are some U.S. regulations which have served as de facto trade barriers to EU-legal microcars. It looks like the Nimbus EV is taking advantage of a loophole with respect to testing requirements - it's a three-wheeled "autocycle", versus a four-wheeled vehicle which would have to undergo crash and other expensive testing for road-worthiness if capable of > 28 mph.
In any case, I'm one of the folks who can't safely bicycle, or use public transit in most weather conditions (this is an indictment of non-existent or inadequate shelters for stops), and there are millions of others similarly restricted. So please forgive me if I'm a little abrasive about this.
That Nimbus vehicle looks like a Renault Twizy. I've seen a fair few of them around over the years, very nippy little things. The Twizy was succeeded by the "Mobilize Duo", which is VaaS-only (and therefore dead to me).
*Edit to add: I hadn't come across subscription-only vehicles before, but it looks like Renault have been trying it for a while. If you want to pay £600/month (to be fair, it looks fairly comprehensive), and only have a licence to use your car, Renault has you covered.
Moped cars/micro carshave been around since the 80s, these days they also have started to be delivered in electric variants.
But in the English speaking world they seem to be hugely unknown, to the point there isn't an English wikipedia page about them (here is the dutch one translated), although there is one for one of the brands making them.
They are classified as a specific type of light motor vehicle which makes them specifically suitable for urban use and people with disabilities.
I've seen lots of Aixam cars* in towns in France and Spain, but never in the big cities (anecdote time!). What's more, they're still quite stigmatised, seen as very uncool, perhaps because they've tended to sound like a screeching moped while moving at 30/40 kmh. I think they'd be a lot more viable in a city if there were a greater mass of people using them. If you're the only one in that fragile thing, you're toast, quite frankly. Perhaps we could put limits on axle weights for private cars entering into city centres, and that way make these lighter vehicles safer and a better option?
*What an adorable URL.
I suppose this comes down to infrastructure again. In the Netherlands, we generally speaking, have pretty good infrastructure accounting for different types of traffic. As these mini cars are, by law, limited in power and speed they are for example allowed on bike paths in some cases. Allowing them to avoid roads where cars would drive at much higher speeds than these little cars are capable of.
In a similar sense we do have a lot of traffic calming (see this specifcially) in place in inner cities which makes it so that using these microcars is much less of a safety hazard for the driver.
There is only so much you can do with regulations on vehicles and traffic laws in general if your streets make it too easy to ignore those to begin with.
In the U.S. when they want to limit the speed of traffic in a street they will put up a sign, in some rare instances they'll put up a speed bump. But the street itself is probably still fairly wide and will allow for much higher speeds.
In the Netherlands, streets are often designed so that the driver will automatically drive around the speed limit. This is achieved by making streets/lanes narrower on purpose, for lower speed limits by replacing asphalt for brick roads and many other things.
So even if the speed limits are identical, it is much more likely the Dutch driver is actually closer to it. Not because they necessarily are a better driver or more well-behaved. But simply because the road discourages driving much faster.
To get back to the point. In a situation where proper traffic-calming is in place, using other types of transports than cars is much more natural. As cars are much less of a hazard if they are not allowed to dominate streets to begin with. Which also makes micro cars much more viable in these environments.
To get to places?
My great-aunt has cerebral palsy. She can't use a mobility scooter, she needs a specially adapted car which her wheelchair and her carers and all the associated stuff they need to carry around fits into. Doesn't matter how great the buses or trains get, or how many adapted bikes exist, the alternative to a car for her is to remain at home.
Cars are never going to be 100% un-needed, and that's OK. Getting rid of most of them will be fine.
At the same time, there are disabled people who can't drive and for whom other accessible infrastructure is definitely necessary. We should absolutely keep accessibility for the disabled and elderly in mind for all manner of urban design decisions, but the idea that cars are automatically always the more accessible option for all disabled or elderly people seems weirdly common in comments sections like this. Disabled people have a wide range of experiences and access needs!
Anyway, your comment is good, especially your conclusion.
There's an elderly man living a few doors down who uses a covered electric moped like this every day: https://skand.com/fi/tuote/gomoto-2-4/
Costs about the same as a shitty car, but counts as a moped and thus doesn't require a valid driver's license.
This is what people should use for local mobility instead of 3-ton SUVs.
Bikes are a great way to get around a city. Cars take up a huge amount of space relative to walking or cycling. The difference in capacity you can obtain if everyone walks instead of cyclic is pretty modest.
My point was just that disabled people can get around without cars (I know quite a few who don't own cars). But the whole point of transformative urbanism is to make urban spaces better for everyone, which is why I believe we should get rid of cars. There are lots of ways to make urban spaces and public transport (e.g. buy trains with level boarding rather than stairs in each carriage) more accessible for disabled people. Cars are (in my view) not one of these.
Though half the reason busses are so slow is because of all the cars and stoplights.
If we banned the cars, trippled the busses, and eliminated the majority of stoplights (training pedestrians to make way for the busses), busses could move a lot faster.
The other half of the reason is that the busses can't go directly point to point, and even when there's a point near you that a bus will use to go to another point that is near your destination, it still has to stop at a bunch of points in-between. People always like to omit that part because it's foundational to the concept and can't be done away with, you're going to have a much longer commute from any public transit just because you're going to have to accommodate EVERYONE'S transit rather than your more specialized subset. It's not something you can optimize out of the design, it is the design.
This is true in some circumstances, but not universally the way you present it. Particularly in urban environments with good metro systems, public transit systems can take advantage of routes that are completely unavailable to someone driving a private vehicle and can travel at much faster speeds.
I will agree that it is more often the case with a bus than with other public transport, but again in urban environments this is less clear. Not needing to find parking at one's destination can make even buses outperform one's own car in certain cases, especially short distances in very dense urban areas.
Skateboards and roller-skates need the roads to be pretty damn smooth or you risk a nasty dentist visit.
Also it's a huge hassle to take off your skates and switch to normal shoes when going shopping.
The other thing that is never mentioned is groceries and shopping.
When I go to the grocery store, how am I supposed to transport all that food home on a bike? You could fit a few small things in a compartment on the bike, but not everything.
People who like to go to the mall and buy a bunch of stuff, same thing. Maybe it's time for a new wardrobe or they're the type of person who enjoys shopping, you can't fit much on a bike.
If I'm going camping, how am I going to fit all my camping gear on a bike? A tent, sleeping bag, clothes, food, stove, etc? Can't fit all that on a bike.
Bikes can be useful for commute and transportation some places but they can never replace vehicles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikepacking/
Going camping with a bike is a huge thing. It's different from the usual American Camping where you roll up 5 meters from a campsite with your Truck or SUV and offload a metric ton of gear.
Works better in countries where we have the right to roam and can just ride to any forest and set up a hammock or a tent.
Bikes don't really need to replace 100% of vehicles or trips. Renting a car or van for the occasional trip is waaaaay cheaper than monthly lease and insurance payments. In many European cities, it's common to have lots with rentable cars available as needed.
My grandma is 80, she still bikes everywhere. She has never owned a car nor had a driver's license.
We, as a family, got her an e-bike a few years back and now she bikes to her childhood home in the countryside (still owned by her and her siblings) multiple times every summer. I think it's like 20-25km, about a third of the way is gravel road. She used to do the same trip with a normal bike when she was only 70, but it's easier now.
My grandpa biked with a trike pretty often even though he couldn't walk properly. Also never owned a car nor had a license.
I have a friend whose dad got pretty badly injured in the military and is 99% blind. They bike with a tandem bike regularly.
It's about infrastructure, not about age or fitness. As long as there are safe bike lanes that are maintained all year round (and not American "sidewalks") it's perfectly doable and safe.
It is great that your grandparents are capable of cycling as means of transportation. I wouldn't use them as a standard for most 80 year olds.
Not if your main exercise is walking to and from your car =)
The main factors to them being able to bike at that age is the fact that they've been doing it for decades and the fact that it's really safe to bike here.
It is really not that simple. It's great that your family have a favorable genetics.
So some people can't commute to work with a bike because ... genetics? Seriously?
Sure. There are plenty of health issues that are determined by genetics and are largely unavoidable. My grandfather was an active, healthy man until he developed an internal bleeding in his brain and couldn't leave the house alone anymore. My grandmother was completely healthy and active until she had a sequence of strokes. My mother, completely healthy and active until her knees started acting out. My late mother-in-law had a sequence of seizures that ultimately impaired her motor control of her legs.
None of those things were preventable. They are largely determined by genetic predisposition. And all of those things most certainly prevented them from using a bicycle for transportation.
I don’t mean to minimize your family’s issues, but genes aren’t exactly death sentences. A lot of genetic health issues associated with age are triggered by environment. You can have a gene that predisposes yourself towards an ailment but there are ways you can live to prevent them from manifesting. In many cases it simply means having a good diet and exercising.
Of course this doesn’t change the fact that people who are living with these issues today still shouldn’t ride a bike. I just get irritated at the genes=destiny story.
I fail to see how my grandparents could have been any more active and well taken care of prior to their brain issues. Even more so with 2 doctor kids and 1 doctor grandson.
Especially my grandpa who worked well into his 70s, walking, taking the bus to his workshop and working all day.
He was extremely intelligent, curious, and mentally active.
Sure, genes are not destiny. But sometimes you are just out of luck.